Subject: [stir] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-05: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 17:29:15 -0800

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken-05: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A nontrivial amount of text in this document appears to have been taken from
https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/download.php/32237/ATIS-1000074.pdf
which notes that "No part of this publication may be reproduced in any
form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior
written permission of the publisher."  Do we have prior written permission
to duplicate such text?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am interested in seeing the resolution of discussion on Ekr's Discuss, but
will stick to that thread for such discussion.

Section 4

Am I reading this properly that the difference between 'A' and 'B' is that
in 'B' we don't have any information about the device that's originating
the call, just the identity of the user/customer?

---

From: Chris Wendt <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:05:55 -0500

Hi Ben, All, 

Originally in the document, i believe i did have most of this information defined as a reference to the original SHAKEN document.  I got working group comments that believed the definitions should be directly in the document themselves versus by reference.

I worry about trying to re-write things too much with the potential of causing confusion between the SHAKEN and STIR specs.

I guess i would need higher level guidance on how to proceed with this if there is a concern about this.  While I can check with ATIS folks and maybe initiate some "written permission” not sure if that is the best path here or if i really have the legal standing to do that myself in either case.

-Chris

> On Nov 18, 2018, at 8:29 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:36:13 -0600

Hi Chris,

> I worry about trying to re-write things too much with the potential of causing confusion between the SHAKEN and STIR specs.

I definitely understand this sentiment.

> I guess i would need higher level guidance on how to proceed with this if there is a concern about this.  While I can check with ATIS folks and maybe initiate some "written permission” not sure if…

I think Adam will be helping to coordinate these efforts, based on our
discussions on the telechat today.

-Benjamin

---

From: Chris Wendt <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:42:33 -0500

Ok, will wait for guidance.

Thanks

> On Nov 21, 2018, at 8:36 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Chris,
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:51:34 -0600

To keep everyone in the loop -- the ATIS director for SHAKEN Governance 
has indicated that he will plans to provide us with written permission 
from an appropriate party to publish draft-ietf-stir-passport-shaken in 
its current form.

/a

On 11/26/18 10:42 AM, Chris Wendt wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> stir mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stir